PHOENIX -- The Arizona House and Senate will soon vote on proposals that would abolish the concealed-carry weapons permit law.
The votes are expected to take placed before the end of next week.
If the law passes, Arizona will be one of three states that allows gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Only Alaska and Vermont currently do not require concealed-carry weapons permits.
"It's the second amendment. The second amendment says we have the right to keep and carry arms. The founding fathers wanted no regulation in that,” said Ken Logan, the range manager at Shooter’s World in Phoenix.
He supports the state proposal, despite the fact that it could hurt his business.
Right now, potential owners must complete an eight hour training class, which Shooter’s World offers, to obtain their weapons permits.
Logan said gun owners usually seek out training, regardless of legal requirements.
“You're responsible for that bullet wherever it goes,” he said. “You need to know how to use that firearm before you carry it.”
His customers weren’t convinced it would be safe to get rid of the training requirement for concealed weapons permits.
"I think should they keep the permits going,” said Justin Ivy, a lifelong gun owner who said he learned a lot during the required training class.
“You have to know how to use it,” said Dennis Fiorillo, a gun owner who also said he benefited training classes. “You know have to know how to use it safely so nobody gets hurt.”
now I fully support my 2nd amendment rights but this could be dangerous. To get a CC permit you have to take test to prove your ability to make decisions and your ability to handle firearms.
If this were to become law then anyone could carry a gun. In fact there is also a bill that would not require the gun to registered either good luck trying to solve that murder case when the guns th eonly evidence
I predict this will change nothing on any meaningful level.
I predict that will not stop anti-gun and pro-gun lobbies arguing about it, and down the track using charts to prove that crime and/or violence dropped or increased dramatically, despite there being an imperceptible change. Meanwhile the actual causes of crime and violence will carry on without anyone challenging them.
PHOENIX -- The Arizona House and Senate will soon vote on proposals that would abolish the concealed-carry weapons permit law.
The votes are expected to take placed before the end of next week.
If the law passes, Arizona will be one of three states that allows gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Only Alaska and Vermont currently do not require concealed-carry weapons permits.
"It's the second amendment. The second amendment says we have the right to keep and carry arms. The founding fathers wanted no regulation in that,” said Ken Logan, the range manager at Shooter’s World in Phoenix.
He supports the state proposal, despite the fact that it could hurt his business.
Right now, potential owners must complete an eight hour training class, which Shooter’s World offers, to obtain their weapons permits.
Logan said gun owners usually seek out training, regardless of legal requirements.
“You're responsible for that bullet wherever it goes,” he said. “You need to know how to use that firearm before you carry it.”
His customers weren’t convinced it would be safe to get rid of the training requirement for concealed weapons permits.
"I think should they keep the permits going,” said Justin Ivy, a lifelong gun owner who said he learned a lot during the required training class.
“You have to know how to use it,” said Dennis Fiorillo, a gun owner who also said he benefited training classes. “You know have to know how to use it safely so nobody gets hurt.”
now I fully support my 2nd amendment rights but this could be dangerous. To get a CC permit you have to take test to prove your ability to make decisions and your ability to handle firearms.
If this were to become law then anyone could carry a gun. In fact there is also a bill that would not require the gun to registered either good luck trying to solve that murder case when the guns th eonly evidence
Hmm. In Mn I only had to prove I could not shoot my toe off by taking a training class. Had no psych evaluation to determine my decision making skills (though if you ever been in a nuthouse or under an OOP you can't get a permit to even buy).
I wish Mn would do that. Damn $100 every 4 years to prove I can handle it (and if I'm 30 days or more past due on renewing I need to retake the training class for an extra $125 because apparently that permit allows me to remember how to shoot (my old age has addled my memory but I think I can go more than 30 days without forgetting how to shoot).
PHOENIX -- The Arizona House and Senate will soon vote on proposals that would abolish the concealed-carry weapons permit law.
The votes are expected to take placed before the end of next week.
If the law passes, Arizona will be one of three states that allows gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Only Alaska and Vermont currently do not require concealed-carry weapons permits.
"It's the second amendment. The second amendment says we have the right to keep and carry arms. The founding fathers wanted no regulation in that,” said Ken Logan, the range manager at Shooter’s World in Phoenix.
He supports the state proposal, despite the fact that it could hurt his business.
Right now, potential owners must complete an eight hour training class, which Shooter’s World offers, to obtain their weapons permits.
Logan said gun owners usually seek out training, regardless of legal requirements.
“You're responsible for that bullet wherever it goes,” he said. “You need to know how to use that firearm before you carry it.”
His customers weren’t convinced it would be safe to get rid of the training requirement for concealed weapons permits.
"I think should they keep the permits going,” said Justin Ivy, a lifelong gun owner who said he learned a lot during the required training class.
“You have to know how to use it,” said Dennis Fiorillo, a gun owner who also said he benefited training classes. “You know have to know how to use it safely so nobody gets hurt.”
now I fully support my 2nd amendment rights but this could be dangerous. To get a CC permit you have to take test to prove your ability to make decisions and your ability to handle firearms.
If this were to become law then anyone could carry a gun. In fact there is also a bill that would not require the gun to registered either good luck trying to solve that murder case when the guns th eonly evidence
Hmm. In Mn I only had to prove I could not shoot my toe off by taking a training class. Had no psych evaluation to determine my decision making skills (though if you ever been in a nuthouse or under an OOP you can't get a permit to even buy).
I wish Mn would do that. Damn $100 every 4 years to prove I can handle it (and if I'm 30 days or more past due on renewing I need to retake the training class for an extra $125 because apparently that permit allows me to remember how to shoot (my old age has addled my memory but I think I can go more than 30 days without forgetting how to shoot).
Well you have to make sure you don't shoot the guy standing 10 feet to the right of your intended target, and that you won't shoot someone because they bumped into you.
Honestly i'm more afraid of losing registration for all weapons sold in AZ. That could directly effect polices ability to investigate shootings.
PHOENIX -- The Arizona House and Senate will soon vote on proposals that would abolish the concealed-carry weapons permit law.
The votes are expected to take placed before the end of next week.
If the law passes, Arizona will be one of three states that allows gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Only Alaska and Vermont currently do not require concealed-carry weapons permits.
"It's the second amendment. The second amendment says we have the right to keep and carry arms. The founding fathers wanted no regulation in that,” said Ken Logan, the range manager at Shooter’s World in Phoenix.
He supports the state proposal, despite the fact that it could hurt his business.
Right now, potential owners must complete an eight hour training class, which Shooter’s World offers, to obtain their weapons permits.
Logan said gun owners usually seek out training, regardless of legal requirements.
“You're responsible for that bullet wherever it goes,” he said. “You need to know how to use that firearm before you carry it.”
His customers weren’t convinced it would be safe to get rid of the training requirement for concealed weapons permits.
"I think should they keep the permits going,” said Justin Ivy, a lifelong gun owner who said he learned a lot during the required training class.
“You have to know how to use it,” said Dennis Fiorillo, a gun owner who also said he benefited training classes. “You know have to know how to use it safely so nobody gets hurt.”
now I fully support my 2nd amendment rights but this could be dangerous. To get a CC permit you have to take test to prove your ability to make decisions and your ability to handle firearms.
If this were to become law then anyone could carry a gun. In fact there is also a bill that would not require the gun to registered either good luck trying to solve that murder case when the guns th eonly evidence
Hmm. In Mn I only had to prove I could not shoot my toe off by taking a training class. Had no psych evaluation to determine my decision making skills (though if you ever been in a nuthouse or under an OOP you can't get a permit to even buy).
I wish Mn would do that. Damn $100 every 4 years to prove I can handle it (and if I'm 30 days or more past due on renewing I need to retake the training class for an extra $125 because apparently that permit allows me to remember how to shoot (my old age has addled my memory but I think I can go more than 30 days without forgetting how to shoot).
Well you have to make sure you don't shoot the guy standing 10 feet to the right of your intended target, and that you won't shoot someone because they bumped into you.
Honestly i'm more afraid of losing registration for all weapons sold in AZ. That could directly effect polices ability to investigate shootings.
Police and BCA in MN handle gun crimes just fine as far as tracking and we aren't required to register. None of mine are. Then again, most gun crimes in this state are perpetrated by morons who leave a trail of evidence so clear a blind wiener dog could follow it.
I'm about as pro second amendment as it gets. But I agree that this could be a problematic bill. I disprove of people being denied firearms, but I approve of them having to demonstrate the intelligence and competence to handle lethal weaponry in an appropriate manner.
Which is why it pisses me off that service members 18, 19 and 20 year old service members can't get concealed carry permits in most places. But that's a completely different subject, and I don't want to hijack this thread.
Criminals are cowards at heart. If they see the odds are against them and they might get shot, that job at Taco Bell starts to look better all the time...
Meanwhile, the link you provide is one of millions available that prove concealed carry leads to less crime/more crime and less violence/more violence. It's all partisan crap, if you go looking for patterns and choose you're time periods carefully you'll find whatever result you want. Objective reviews have found negligible effect - turns out compared to poverty, employment opportunities and drugs guns don't mean much either way.
Commander Endova wrote:I'm about as pro second amendment as it gets. But I agree that this could be a problematic bill. I disprove of people being denied firearms, but I approve of them having to demonstrate the intelligence and competence to handle lethal weaponry in an appropriate manner.
Which is why it pisses me off that service members 18, 19 and 20 year old service members can't get concealed carry permits in most places. But that's a completely different subject, and I don't want to hijack this thread.
You don't need concealed carry specialty if everyone can carry.
In light of the failed state next door, its ok. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the US thanks to the federal government not protecting US citizens.
sebster wrote:I predict this will change nothing on any meaningful level.
I predict that will not stop anti-gun and pro-gun lobbies arguing about it, and down the track using charts to prove that crime and/or violence dropped or increased dramatically, despite there being an imperceptible change. Meanwhile the actual causes of crime and violence will carry on without anyone challenging them.
Pretty much total agreement.
Concealed carry laws are not particularly onerous. Apply, take a class, and unless you're a convicted criminal or legally insane you're likely to get one. Given the penalties for carrying a weapon without a license your average person will look at the risk/reward and decide that if it matters that much to them they'll get the license. Criminals and idiots weren't likely getting licenses anyways to begin with.
So in other words responsible gun owners will continue to be responsible. Idiots and criminals will continue to be idiots and criminals. Total change, not much. Sort of like how gun registration only gets law abiding citizens to register their guns.
Unfortunately, I do not support the measure. Concealed handguns should be licensed. People who walk around with them who should get longer jail time when and if they pull that gun out during another crime they commit.
Thats why Im a fan of open carry. If someone has a sidearm on their hip, or somewhere just as easily to see, theres no way a crook is going to think its a good idea to try and rob them.
edit: sorry for the over generilization(SP?) but from here it looks like your gun laws spawn more problems then they solve.. that being none as far as I know.
I'm being serious here, for what reason are you arming yourself? I've never gotten a straight anwser to this question and was usually flamed away for it.
Soladrin wrote:I'm being serious here, for what reason are you arming yourself? I've never gotten a straight anwser to this question and was usually flamed away for it.
You are yourself because you have rationalized one of several things:
You are in danger. That is a broad category from a dangerous neighborhood to a rise in local crime to a zombie apocalypse in the maiking. If you feel the need to protect yourself and have advanced warning, you will get a gun if you can afford it and maybe join a group of like minded individuals.
Street cred. You get a weapon cause it is cool and makes you badass to those whose perception revolves around a social structure where violence has become an inherent part of the culture you live in. It may serve a functional value, but it is secondary to the real reason you got it: to make you look cool.
Practical reasons. Your use it in the line of work, whether it is as a cop or as a drug dealer. If things go bad, it becomes the last resort of defense in a do or die situation.
Homicidal rationale: This is complicated because it means you intend to harm someone, which could be for a broad category of reasons which may of evolved from another reason, such as believing you are in danger. An armed militia who becomes paranoid takes that dangerous leap from believing they are in danger to taking matters into their own hand by seeking out what is threatening them and eliminating the threat. Less sane rationales could be used in this context as well, but that goes down a path in which your own self destruction is assured.
You want to know why then that people use guns to kill each other, as the gun represents a pinnacle in the attempt one human makes to kill another for reasons nature itself does not reveal why we are not a hippy love paradise yet?
And did you ask why we buy guns or why do we obtain guns?
EDIT: When my father was a correction officer, correction officers of NYC have the option to but their gun at the end of their service. They don't actually get to keep their pieces.
* Self Defence From:
- Criminals
- Wild Animals (Pending where you live)
* For use when a crime is seconds away and the police are minutes away..
* Tradition:
- Most American families, Espically us out here in the west/mid west have been shooting for generations. Its as much of our lives as shoes.
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in WW2 was once quoted saying that he was not looking forward to an invasion of the us homeland, because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Now thats saying something considering how brain washed these guys were.
ect ect ect.
Oh wait, what am I saying....
Were AMERICANS! Were blood drinking, baby killing, oil stealing, crop burning, world hateing, soul stripping, money grubbing, no good kitten kickers who sits in our homemade bunkers with our munition stockpiles waiting the day to overthrow big brother and rule the world!!!!!!!
Phew... Excuse my outbreak of common sense for a moment.
jp400: The Japanese for all their belief and devotion to themselves and their emperor were also not disillusioned by challenging the United States in terms of material and protracted warfare. They rightly feared failing to strike a pivotal blow against the United States, but duly fought on with the war because once started, it would not end until war exhaustion forced a peace settlement.
jp400 wrote:Oh I dunno.... off the top of my head:
* Self Defence From:
- Criminals
- Wild Animals (Pending where you live)
* For use when a crime is seconds away and the police are minutes away..
* Tradition:
- Most American families, Espically us out here in the west/mid west have been shooting for generations. Its as much of our lives as shoes.
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in WW2 was once quoted saying that he was not looking forward to an invasion of the us homeland, because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Now thats saying something considering how brain washed these guys were.
ect ect ect.
Oh wait, what am I saying....
Were AMERICANS! Were blood drinking, baby killing, oil stealing, crop burning, world hateing, soul stripping, money grubbing, no good kitten kickers who sits in our homemade bunkers with our munition stockpiles waiting the day to overthrow big brother and rule the world!!!!!!!
Phew... Excuse my outbreak of common sense for a moment.
Wait wait wait... you call arming yourself to kill people common sense? Awesome.
Criminals... I wonder how all those guns got into circulation...
Tradition: World's best excuse to do senseless things!
Your expecting an invasion? good reason right there....
Honestly, I can't think of one, wich is the whole reason I ask this question... now I know this really boils down to oppinions, but the matter just baffles me. Might just be the mindset for me by growing up in Europe though.
I ask this out of pure curiosity for the whole situation.
I guess the only good reason I can think of is... For funsies, wich is the only reason I'd ever want one. But yea, I keep to my pellet rifle...
Oh, aside from how I come off here, I'm a huge gun/military tech nut. (who isn't when their into 40k eh?)
Hey, where I live, coyotes try and eat my pets. We use guns to try and kill coyotes before they eat our pets. Traps are a lot more dangerous and illegal in our area because if someone comes on our land, or even if a kid is out playing, he might get caught in a lethal trap meant for a coyote. Guns are much much safer as long as the weilder is knowledgeable, diligent, and practices good hunting techniques. (IE not shooting until you are sure what you are shooting at is what you want to shoot at.)
Well, the pure intent of guns is to kill. Insert reason to kill in barrel when you pull that trigger to eject a shell that ends the life of another human being. It is a simple and tragic fact that guns were meant to end lives for one reason or another, and we have evolved the gun into an art of murder and warfare that has spanned every corner of the globe merely for the intent to kill, regardless of the reason.
Ratbarf wrote:Hey, where I live, coyotes try and eat my pets. We use guns to try and kill coyotes before they eat our pets. Traps are a lot more dangerous and illegal in our area because if someone comes on our land, or even if a kid is out playing, he might get caught in a lethal trap meant for a coyote. Guns are much much safer as long as the weilder is knowledgeable, diligent, and practices good hunting techniques. (IE not shooting until you are sure what you are shooting at is what you want to shoot at.)
Now that is a good reason, though very location specific I guess. Didn't really think of it since the most dangerous wild life I've ever encountered is like a badger or a wild cow in a reserve...... (bloody bull kept me in a tree for 3 hours). Though I've heard rumors of Wolves migrating our way, wich I think is awesome
jp400 wrote:Oh I dunno.... off the top of my head:
* Self Defence From:
- Criminals
- Wild Animals (Pending where you live)
* For use when a crime is seconds away and the police are minutes away..
* Tradition:
- Most American families, Espically us out here in the west/mid west have been shooting for generations. Its as much of our lives as shoes.
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in WW2 was once quoted saying that he was not looking forward to an invasion of the us homeland, because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Now thats saying something considering how brain washed these guys were.
ect ect ect.
Oh wait, what am I saying....
Were AMERICANS! Were blood drinking, baby killing, oil stealing, crop burning, world hateing, soul stripping, money grubbing, no good kitten kickers who sits in our homemade bunkers with our munition stockpiles waiting the day to overthrow big brother and rule the world!!!!!!!
Phew... Excuse my outbreak of common sense for a moment.
Wait wait wait... you call arming yourself to kill people common sense? Awesome.
Criminals... I wonder how all those guns got into circulation...
Tradition: World's best excuse to do senseless things!
Your expecting an invasion? good reason right there....
So yea... Yet to find a good reason.
And you completly missed the joke at the end. Now that is whats awesome.
Criminals buy guns off this thing called the black market. Most criminals don't legally own guns or carry CCW's, or generally follow the laws. Jo blow ain't going to go to Guns R Us, fill out the paperwork, wait a few days for a background check, just to shoot someone and throw away the registered gun. They are looking for these things called "throw away" guns. One time use junkers that can't be traced back to them and are off all the books.
Tradition isn't senseless when its a way of life and has been for over a hundred years.
Two words for invasion: RED DAWN!!!!!!!
Also A Firearm is a TOOL. And like any tool it can be used for both good and bad. The Tool doesn't have a mind of it's own. It doesn't think, look at you sideways, and make decisions. Someone has to physically pick it up and use it. There is not a single firearm ever that has jumped up off the table, loaded itself with ammo, and went on a shooting spree. People kill people. The humble firearm is just another tool. Much like a knife, Car, club ect ect.
I know you were kidding, but I was being serious. Yea, who am I kidding, i fell for that one face first.
Oh and how much % of the guns on the black market have come from legal shops etc.? Cause I know your criminals are much more heavily armed on avarage compared to Europe.
Well, it could be potentially high. We have a few tricks police like to use to collect illegally owned guns. They sometimes hold a day of collection with "Don't ask, Don't tell" policies for people who bring in illegally owned guns and get cash from the police by turning them in. Some drives turn up hundreds of guns ranging from modded air rifles to automatic weapons seen only in Israeli armed forces.
Ratbarf wrote:Hey, where I live, coyotes try and eat my pets. We use guns to try and kill coyotes before they eat our pets. Traps are a lot more dangerous and illegal in our area because if someone comes on our land, or even if a kid is out playing, he might get caught in a lethal trap meant for a coyote. Guns are much much safer as long as the weilder is knowledgeable, diligent, and practices good hunting techniques. (IE not shooting until you are sure what you are shooting at is what you want to shoot at.)
Now that is a good reason, though very location specific I guess. Didn't really think of it since the most dangerous wild life I've ever encountered is like a badger or a wild cow in a reserve...... (bloody bull kept me in a tree for 3 hours). Though I've heard rumors of Wolves migrating our way, wich I think is awesome
We do it because WE CAN. We bow to no lord or master here and have a fundamental right to bear arms, just as we have a fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Remember boys and girls, a Kentucky rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
I have come to the conclusion that I will never understand the American mind set towards guns, and will continue to point and laugh for it, you know, because I can.
Soladrin wrote:I have come to the conclusion that I will never understand the American mind set towards guns, and will continue to point and laugh for it, you know, because I can.
We have not progressed as far as Europe as to say guns killed tens of millions of people in the span of 3 decades. I would suspect America would be loathe to have rampant guns in this country if not for our cultural heritage with militias, freedom granted by amendment rights to carry guns, and the lack of a sombering experience to the American psyche (Vietnam counts, but the attenion span of an America is about goldfish level, so the Nixon debacle following 'nam was a juicy sideshow to avoid a deeply depressing public mood. 'nam affected the way politicians and the military went about war, but didn't destroy our love for gunz).
Soladrin wrote:I have come to the conclusion that I will never understand the American mind set towards guns, and will continue to point and laugh for it, you know, because I can.
And in the spirit of your trolling post, don't worry, we'll point and laugh in your general direction as well. What country are you from again?
Soladrin wrote:I have come to the conclusion that I will never understand the American mind set towards guns, and will continue to point and laugh for it, you know, because I can.
And in the spirit of your trolling post, don't worry, we'll point and laugh in your general direction as well. What country are you from again?
What I'm saying is that being able to do something doesn't mean you should do it, if you don't understand that logic I give up.
And seriously, your the one who started calling names mister Mod.
OH and WarOne, you just nuked a country... twice, and went on arming other countries, good thing that doesn't count.
Soladrin wrote:I have come to the conclusion that I will never understand the American mind set towards guns, and will continue to point and laugh for it, you know, because I can.
And in the spirit of your trolling post, don't worry, we'll point and laugh in your general direction as well. What country are you from again?
What I'm saying is that being able to do something doesn't mean you should do it, if you don't understand that logic I give up.
And seriously, your the one who started calling names mister Mod.
OH and WarOne, you just nuked a country... twice, and went on arming other countries, good thing that doesn't count.
I'm sorry, where did I call anyone names again? Additionally, please explain which country we just nuked...twice? Is your grasp of history bad or posting in English? As a secondlanguage you may have glitched the statement.
Thats two attacks on the US. At three I get to unleash MDG. He's fickle about his new country.
Japan? And, in other thread, but yea kinda OT... I don't know if your having a bad, or just have a complete opposite sense of humor of me or something, but you just come off to me like a jerk.
Is your grasp on your own history so bad that you don't even know you nuked a country TWICE?!
edit: oh i see the mix up now, the way i used the word Just makes it sound like it happened just the other day... my bad on that.
Soladrin wrote:Japan? And, in other thread, but yea kinda OT... I don't know if your having a bad, or just have a complete opposite sense of humor of me or something, but you just come off to me like a jerk.
Is your grasp on your own history so bad that you don't even know you nuked a country TWICE?!
edit: oh i see the mix up now, the way i used the word Just makes it sound like it happened just the other day... my bad on that.
You rock.
wait wait.. new country?
Oh, whats MDG btw? I seriously don't know >_<.
You stated "Just nuked"
1. I'm old, but even i don't think the nuking of Japan in World War II just happened. You're working on a time frame that even Methusalah would go...woooooo.
2. You're neglecting that whole World War II thing. Again which country are you from. Did we liberate you or kick or your ass?
Well you are generally united in your love of cheese. As the key ingredient to what would one day be the concentrated awesome of both queso and pizza, I have to respect that.
Haha, fair enough. But yea, sorry if i ruffled any feathers.
point in case, WarOne, please don't lump me in with WWII germany and such, they be my angry drunk neighbours as opposed to our country just giving ourselves away first sight of them... and still getting bombed.
KingCracker wrote:Thats why Im a fan of open carry. If someone has a sidearm on their hip, or somewhere just as easily to see, theres no way a crook is going to think its a good idea to try and rob them.
Or it might lead the crook to shoot you from ambush so he can rob you without reprisal.
KingCracker wrote:Thats why Im a fan of open carry. If someone has a sidearm on their hip, or somewhere just as easily to see, theres no way a crook is going to think its a good idea to try and rob them.
Or it might lead the crook to shoot you from ambush so he can rob you without reprisal.
Springfield 1903 (Im rebuilding from the ground up to origional mil spec)
Rem 700 in .223/5.56
XDM 9
DPMS Custom AR in 7.62x39
Moss 500
Rem .22
Walther P22
*EDIT*
Forgot to mention that I also reload my own ammo, and that im currently sitting on about 15k rounds of live ammo.
jp400 wrote:Sad part, is that thats not all of them.
I also have (But not pictured)
Springfield 1903 (Im rebuilding from the ground up to origional mil spec)
Rem 700 in .223/5.56
XDM 9
DPMS Custom AR in 7.62x39
Moss 500
Rem .22
Walther P22
*EDIT*
Forgot to mention that I also reload my own ammo, and that im currently sitting on about 15k rounds of live ammo.
Man,I don't know how far you live from Atlanta,but at the first sign of "undead activity" I'm heading for your house
jp400 wrote:Sad part, is that thats not all of them.
I also have (But not pictured)
Springfield 1903 (Im rebuilding from the ground up to origional mil spec)
Rem 700 in .223/5.56
XDM 9
DPMS Custom AR in 7.62x39
Moss 500
Rem .22
Walther P22
*EDIT*
Forgot to mention that I also reload my own ammo, and that im currently sitting on about 15k rounds of live ammo.
One hell of a 4th of July if your house ever catches fire (or your secret lair you have all that ammo stored).
Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:JP, that is a beautiful collection
Thank you. And in case you or anyone else is wondering... The M1, M1 para Car, Kar 98, Broom Mauser, Colt 1911A1, 2nd Lee Enfield, are all vintage WW2. All are proofed and have supporting paperwork. They are not campfire guns, rebuilds, or anything like that. The M1 Garand is a USMC pacific vet, and the Colt 1911A1 is a lend lease to GB, and is stamped with the Tower of London Armoury proof on the slide, frame, and barral.
The Lugar and the 1st Enfield are WW1 Vets. And the side by side 12g is over 100 years old.
And I shoot or have shot them all!
FITZZ wrote:
jp400 wrote:Sad part, is that thats not all of them.
I also have (But not pictured)
Springfield 1903 (Im rebuilding from the ground up to origional mil spec)
Rem 700 in .223/5.56
XDM 9
DPMS Custom AR in 7.62x39
Moss 500
Rem .22
Walther P22
*EDIT*
Forgot to mention that I also reload my own ammo, and that im currently sitting on about 15k rounds of live ammo.
Man,I don't know how far you live from Atlanta,but at the first sign of "undead activity" I'm heading for your house
Your not the only one that has said the same thing on these forums. And im pretty far. Im 60 miles from Canada on the West Coast.
Fateweaver wrote:
jp400 wrote:Sad part, is that thats not all of them.
I also have (But not pictured)
Springfield 1903 (Im rebuilding from the ground up to origional mil spec)
Rem 700 in .223/5.56
XDM 9
DPMS Custom AR in 7.62x39
Moss 500
Rem .22
Walther P22
*EDIT*
Forgot to mention that I also reload my own ammo, and that im currently sitting on about 15k rounds of live ammo.
One hell of a 4th of July if your house ever catches fire (or your secret lair you have all that ammo stored).
Not really. I keep the guns in a fire/smoke/water proof safe, and the Ammo/reloading gear I keep in a undisclosed, safe location.
This is my current dream rifle, with a monster scope. Frazzled is old and needs his spectacles he does.
Fulton Arms .308 caliber AR-10 styled Titan.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/
If there's to be no restriction on concealed carry, would that only be on pistols or could you walk around with a Garand on your back? Because that would be totally sweet.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:You'd totally look like the dude from Fallout with a rifle slung across your back. And have chafed shoulders.....
If your surviving the Apocalypse or Post Apocalypse you need to have your rifle ready to fire at all times.
Which is why these are on my "To Buy" list over the next few years:
Lever Action Pistol in .45 Long Colt
12 Guage Super Shorty in leg holster
Sp-89 (Civi Legal Mp5k) in leg holster
Which also comes in a sexy under arm holster option also
And all I will ever ask for is a Dragunov... is that to much to ask?:(
You ready for this?
Have access to one, shot one, and am not impressed by the SVD. Though if you want, you can pick up a Romanian knock off for about $800 here.
**EDIT**
And I see your rifle Fraz... and humbly submit my dream rifle complete with the super duper highspeed optics:
I mean hell... Who doesn't want to go Ground Hog hunting with this bad boy?
It so it came to pass that Judgement Day came upon Groundhogville, and the mighty were smote by the finger of JP400...
JP400 wins the who can shoot the badass rifle contest. I shot a .50 in my younger days but I like my shoulder undislocated at this point in my life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
jp400 wrote:
So pretty.
If there's to be no restriction on concealed carry, would that only be on pistols or could you walk around with a Garand on your back? Because that would be totally sweet.
I think you're missing the "concealed" part of concealed carry a bit there Sebster.
jp400 wrote:Which also comes in a sexy under arm holster option also
Would a concealed carry license let you go do your shopping with that?
Short Answer: It depends...
A MP5 stands for Machine Pistol... so it and the semi auto civi version (SP-89) are classified as a pistol. So if you have a CCW, you could (So long as you were following your local state laws) CC this. Now if your state rocks (like my state) its legal to CCLEGAL full auto weapons. So technically you could CC a Mp5k, or a Glock 18 if you owned one legally.
However, if you actually used it to defend yourself, a saavy lawyer could nail you for excessive force since you are packing more firepower then the local police.
Frazzled wrote:
jp400 wrote:
It so it came to pass that Judgement Day came upon Groundhogville, and the mighty were smote by the finger of JP400...
JP400 wins the who can shoot the badass rifle contest. I shot a .50 in my younger days but I like my shoulder undislocated at this point in my life.
I own a 12ga and a .45. I pack more firepower than most cops (.38 being the default gun for cops in my town).
I want to purchase some beanbag rounds. I want to see a man go down in pain when I smack his junk with a beanbag from my shotgun, then I'll unload one into his sternum for good measure.
Where do you live, that your local PD isn't up to the national min standard of 9mm? Just to give you an idea on when the .38 special was considered king......
And you are more then welcome to pay large amount of money to hit a guy with said bean bag. Im just going to laugh when he gets arrested and then turns around and sues you for excessive force and wins.
If he just walks into your home and you shoot him, your going to jail.
If he breaks into your house and you can prove intent to do you harm, you can then kill him.
If he breaks into your house with intent to harm you, and you hit him with a NLR, he goes down and is no longer a threat, and you hit him again, you just crossed the line into excessive force. If he goes down from NLR and you then kill him, then its murder.
In any case if you shoot someone, be prepared to spend at least 72 hours in the local jail while the PD figures out what happened.
Here is another kicker.. you live in a city? Justified or not you can be tried for "discharging a firearm within city limits".
If he just walks into your home and you shoot him, your going to jail.
If he breaks into your house and you can prove intent to do you harm, you can then kill him.
If he breaks into your house with intent to harm you, and you hit him with a NLR, he goes down and is no longer a threat, and you hit him again, you just crossed the line into excessive force. If he goes down from NLR and you then kill him, then its murder.
In any case if you shoot someone, be prepared to spend at least 72 hours in the local jail while the PD figures out what happened.
Here is another kicker.. you live in a city? Justified or not you can be tried for "discharging a firearm within city limits".
If he walks into my house it's Breaking and Entering. A Felony. Hence I can defend my house with deadly force if I feel the need. All I have to do is feel threatened by his actions and someone just walking into my house as if he lives there would make me feel threatened.
He doesn't have to intend to do harm. He could be headed for the refrigerator for a bite to eat and I can still use lethal force to diffuse the situation.
If I hit him with an NLR and then hit him again when he's down the court has to PROVE that he was down for the count after the first one. It's on the prosecutor to prove I was overzealous.
I'm outside of city limits.
The first two I admit are a bit sketchy but then again with the Castle Doctrine I just have to "feel" threatened by someone entering my house uninvited and that is reasonable cause enough for me to defend myself. The person does not even need to be armed. It's on the hands of the prosecutor/police officers to prove I didn't feel threatened and that can't be proven.
I didn't say strangers can't knock on my door or ring the doorbell.
I don't care where you live. If you walk into a house uninvited it is breaking and entering and trespassing all rolled into one.
My state, MN, says I can use lethal force to defend my home against a felony being commited. B&E in Mn is a Felony. Ergo, if someone enters my house uninvited I can use lethal force if I feel I need to. Depending on the individual I would not always use lethal force. If a child walks into my house and looks lost or scared of course I won't shoot him. If an adult enters my house and he appears to be drunk and or jacked up on some illegal drug and looking to cause trouble than he won't be leaving my house without a hole (or two) in him.
If somebody has nothing but goodwill intentions when they come to my house they won't just open the door and walk in. They'll knock first or ring the doorbell or yell my name or whatever.
Fateweaver wrote:I didn't say strangers can't knock on my door or ring the doorbell.
I don't care where you live. If you walk into a house uninvited it is breaking and entering and trespassing all rolled into one.
My state, MN, says I can use lethal force to defend my home against a felony being commited. B&E in Mn is a Felony. Ergo, if someone enters my house uninvited I can use lethal force if I feel I need to. Depending on the individual I would not always use lethal force. If a child walks into my house and looks lost or scared of course I won't shoot him. If an adult enters my house and he appears to be drunk and or jacked up on some illegal drug and looking to cause trouble than he won't be leaving my house without a hole (or two) in him.
If somebody has nothing but goodwill intentions when they come to my house they won't just open the door and walk in. They'll knock first or ring the doorbell or yell my name or whatever.
I still think your a loony, how can you talk about killing someone that simply?
Fateweaver wrote:I own a 12ga and a .45. I pack more firepower than most cops (.38 being the default gun for cops in my town).
I want to purchase some beanbag rounds. I want to see a man go down in pain when I smack his junk with a beanbag from my shotgun, then I'll unload one into his sternum for good measure.
Note to self, wear cup if intending to tick off fateweaver...
Fateweaver wrote:I didn't say strangers can't knock on my door or ring the doorbell.
I don't care where you live. If you walk into a house uninvited it is breaking and entering and trespassing all rolled into one.
My state, MN, says I can use lethal force to defend my home against a felony being commited. B&E in Mn is a Felony. Ergo, if someone enters my house uninvited I can use lethal force if I feel I need to. Depending on the individual I would not always use lethal force. If a child walks into my house and looks lost or scared of course I won't shoot him. If an adult enters my house and he appears to be drunk and or jacked up on some illegal drug and looking to cause trouble than he won't be leaving my house without a hole (or two) in him.
If somebody has nothing but goodwill intentions when they come to my house they won't just open the door and walk in. They'll knock first or ring the doorbell or yell my name or whatever.
I still think your a loony, how can you talk about killing someone that simply?
I didn't say it would be easy on me afterwards. I don't live alone so if someone with ill intent enters my home when the other person is there it is not only my duty to protect myself but to protect the other individual. Would I feel remorse later? Of course I would. I'm not a monster. Would I regret what I did? Probably not. My neighborhood has more meth heads and meth dealers than decent folks so I'd be doing the community a favor by offing a dealer or an addict.
But keep thinking that I could kill and man and not regret it. If someone enters my house looking for trouble than I can easily and simply say that I would kill him/her if I had to. If MY life and/or the life of the other person in my house depended on it.
Sorry you don't feel that way but that is the difference between you and I. Me being me doesn't make me a loon or a dangerous individual. You might choose to defend your home with your fists or a bat or a knife. All 3 can be lethal if used properly (crack someone in the head with a wooden bat hard enough and they'll actually suffer a very slow, painful death as their brain swells inside there now fractured skull until it can swell no longer and ruptures inside their head).
If he just walks into your home and you shoot him, your going to jail.
If he breaks into your house and you can prove intent to do you harm, you can then kill him.
If he breaks into your house with intent to harm you, and you hit him with a NLR, he goes down and is no longer a threat, and you hit him again, you just crossed the line into excessive force. If he goes down from NLR and you then kill him, then its murder.
In any case if you shoot someone, be prepared to spend at least 72 hours in the local jail while the PD figures out what happened.
Here is another kicker.. you live in a city? Justified or not you can be tried for "discharging a firearm within city limits".
Texas' version of the Castle Doctrine is basically if BG enters house, GG is free to alleviate BG's need for breathing. We're more civilized that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:I believe he forms the words in his mind, the translates them into text and hits submit.
If he just walks into your home and you shoot him, your going to jail.
If he breaks into your house and you can prove intent to do you harm, you can then kill him.
If he breaks into your house with intent to harm you, and you hit him with a NLR, he goes down and is no longer a threat, and you hit him again, you just crossed the line into excessive force. If he goes down from NLR and you then kill him, then its murder.
In any case if you shoot someone, be prepared to spend at least 72 hours in the local jail while the PD figures out what happened.
Here is another kicker.. you live in a city? Justified or not you can be tried for "discharging a firearm within city limits".
Texas' version of the Castle Doctrine is basically if BG enters house, GG is free to alleviate BG's need for breathing. We're more civilized that way.
Minnesota is the same way, thankfully. For being a Liberal state it sure does protect gun owners rights fairly well (though those laws were passed before it fell into Liberal hands and we've gotten lucky that none of our Liberal politicians have passed any slowed gun laws. Some have tried but they've all failed.
Frazzled wrote:Texas' version of the Castle Doctrine is basically if BG enters house, GG is free to alleviate BG's need for breathing. We're more civilized that way.
Amusingly, California also has a reasonable Castle Doctrine in place, meaning, if a threat is in your home, you can do whatever you feel necessary to protect yourself.
If he walks into my house it's Breaking and Entering. A Felony. Hence I can defend my house with deadly force if I feel the need. All I have to do is feel threatened by his actions and someone just walking into my house as if he lives there would make me feel threatened.
Wrong. That is called Trespassing. Breaking and Entering requies some sort of force or 'breaking' to have occured, such as breaking a window or forcing a door open. Just walking into your house (if you left the door open that is) does not necessarily contistute breaking and entering. So if you were to walk dowstairs and spot a guy just walking in a seating himself on the couch, you don't have the right to use lethal force until he makes a threatening move. Unless of course you live in a place where you can use lethal force on trespassers. Then that would make you one of "those" people.
He doesn't have to intend to do harm. He could be headed for the refrigerator for a bite to eat and I can still use lethal force to diffuse the situation.
No. Having killed him, the onus is on you to prove that either he intended to cause harm, or there was reason for you to beleive so. As far as I know, a hobo walking into your house and getting a bite to eat from the fridge can not be called 'threatening'. Therefore, you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him just for that alone, you could tell him at gunpoint to get out of your house, but you wouldn't be allowed to pull the trigger until he actually did something threatening. (Like picking up the kitchen knife or something). Again, this is only if you live in a sane part of the world that values human life. If you live in a place where you can shoot anyone you feel like who enters your premises, then again you are one of "those" people.
If I hit him with an NLR and then hit him again when he's down the court has to PROVE that he was down for the count after the first one. It's on the prosecutor to prove I was overzealous.
True, but it wouldn't be that hard with forensics to tell whether he was on the floor when you shot him. Even if you had a good ol' time cleaning up afterwards.
I'm outside of city limits.
Good for you.
The first two I admit are a bit sketchy but then again with the Castle Doctrine I just have to "feel" threatened by someone entering my house uninvited and that is reasonable cause enough for me to defend myself. The person does not even need to be armed. It's on the hands of the prosecutor/police officers to prove I didn't feel threatened and that can't be proven.
No. Inccoret. The police have to prove that you killed someone, with your conffession, the body in your house, the smokeing gun ect, that shouldn't be too hard. Having used 'self-defense' as your defense, the onus is on YOU to prove that you had reasonable grounds to feel threatened and that taking lethal action was absolutely neccesary. That shouldn't be extremely hard to do, especially if you're telling the truth, but you still have to do that.
I'll admit, this is mostly on my experience with Australian Law and the Westminister system (couple with some basic sense). If the law really is that different between the two, then I'll apologise again, for I was not aware that you were one of "those" people.
If he walks into my house it's Breaking and Entering. A Felony. Hence I can defend my house with deadly force if I feel the need. All I have to do is feel threatened by his actions and someone just walking into my house as if he lives there would make me feel threatened.
Wrong. That is called Trespassing. Breaking and Entering requies some sort of force or 'breaking' to have occured, such as breaking a window or forcing a door open. Just walking into your house (if you left the door open that is) does not necessarily contistute breaking and entering. So if you were to walk dowstairs and spot a guy just walking in a seating himself on the couch, you don't have the right to use lethal force until he makes a threatening move. Unless of course you live in a place where you can use lethal force on trespassers. Then that would make you one of "those" people.
He doesn't have to intend to do harm. He could be headed for the refrigerator for a bite to eat and I can still use lethal force to diffuse the situation.
No. Having killed him, the onus is on you to prove that either he intended to cause harm, or there was reason for you to beleive so. As far as I know, a hobo walking into your house and getting a bite to eat from the fridge can not be called 'threatening'. Therefore, you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him just for that alone, you could tell him at gunpoint to get out of your house, but you wouldn't be allowed to pull the trigger until he actually did something threatening. (Like picking up the kitchen knife or something). Again, this is only if you live in a sane part of the world that values human life. If you live in a place where you can shoot anyone you feel like who enters your premises, then again you are one of "those" people.
If I hit him with an NLR and then hit him again when he's down the court has to PROVE that he was down for the count after the first one. It's on the prosecutor to prove I was overzealous.
True, but it wouldn't be that hard with forensics to tell whether he was on the floor when you shot him. Even if you had a good ol' time cleaning up afterwards.
I'm outside of city limits.
Good for you.
The first two I admit are a bit sketchy but then again with the Castle Doctrine I just have to "feel" threatened by someone entering my house uninvited and that is reasonable cause enough for me to defend myself. The person does not even need to be armed. It's on the hands of the prosecutor/police officers to prove I didn't feel threatened and that can't be proven.
No. Inccoret. The police have to prove that you killed someone, with your conffession, the body in your house, the smokeing gun ect, that shouldn't be too hard. Having used 'self-defense' as your defense, the onus is on YOU to prove that you had reasonable grounds to feel threatened and that taking lethal action was absolutely neccesary. That shouldn't be extremely hard to do, especially if you're telling the truth, but you still have to do that.
I'll admit, this is mostly on my experience with Australian Law and the Westminister system (couple with some basic sense). If the law really is that different between the two, then I'll apologise again, for I was not aware that you were one of "those" people.
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
1st rule of thumb is broken with the unlawful entry. Trespassing is an unlawful act of entering ones dwelling or car or place of business, ergo rule 1 is broken.
2nd rule is broken as soon as the intruder steps across my door. Being in my house is acting illegally since he was not allowed into my home permissively.
Yada yada.
The last one does not apply as Minnesota has the "Stand your ground law". I am not required to warn an intruder or flee my home if possible before using deadly force. All of those conditions above must be met (with exception to the last one as previously mentioned).
So the onus is not on me to prove I was in fear of my life. If a 25yo cranked up on crack or meth comes into my house while I'm home, even if the door is wide open he has broken rules 1 and 2, most likely intends to hurt me or someone in the house, most likely is going to try to burglarize me before OR after trying to inflict bodily harm upon me. That gives me all the authority I need to cap him.
As far as a bean bag round to the nuts and then to the chest. Again, it has to be proven he was down for the count after the first shot.
Oz laws and US laws differ so much I'm not sure why you think what applies to you applies to us.
The last one does not apply as Minnesota has the "Stand your ground law". I am not required to warn an intruder or flee my home if possible before using deadly force. All of those conditions above must be met (with exception to the last one as previously mentioned).
I never mentioned having to flee the house. All I said was that you have to have been reasonable in your use of deadly force.
So the onus is not on me to prove I was in fear of my life. If a 25yo cranked up on crack or meth comes into my house while I'm home, even if the door is wide open he has broken rules 1 and 2, most likely intends to hurt me or someone in the house, most likely is going to try to burglarize me before OR after trying to inflict bodily harm upon me. That gives me all the authority I need to cap him.
Yes, that much is clear. In this case you can reasonably forsee that this man is a threat. However, he would not (if he survived) be found guilty of Breaking and Entering as that does require some amount of forced entry to be used in the Illegal entry. However, if you keep your doors at least closed then you'll never experience this little technicality.
I must stress to you though, even I can clearly see that the 'Castle Doctrine' does not give you free reign to shoot whoever you wish so long as the enter your house illegally. There must be a threat of some sort to your or your persons that requires lethal action. With the drugee walking in with intent to hurt or steal that's a clear case, you don't know what that fella's got or what he's going to do. However, let's say that some homeless man walks in sits on the couch and watches TV. Unless he made some threatening gesture (without provocation from you) then you would not be allowed to shoot him. You could call the cops, but unless there is a real threat to yourself or others then you are not allowed to take the life of another on a whim.
As far as a bean bag round to the nuts and then to the chest. Again, it has to be proven he was down for the count after the first shot.
No, you are using the defense, therefore the onus is on you to prove that the second shot was necessary. I know that even that much is similar between the Oz and the US.
Oz laws and US laws differ so much I'm not sure why you think what applies to you applies to us.
That's true, but the basic prinicples still apply. (In general) We still have reasonable use of lethal force (which doesn't necessarily mean guns) in Self-defense. Our legal systems have more in common than you might at first think. Although I'm surprised at the leeway each State of the US has in being able to make it's own laws. There isn't nearly as much of that in Oz.
The leeway each state is able to grant is due to the Constitution preventing Federal government from controlling anything that the State government can handle.
That is why the NRA is so adamant about keeping any Federal Administration, ie the President, House and Senate, from passing legislation that supersedes that of the State. It's unconstitutional.
I also made it clear that I'm not going to shoot a homeless bum who means no harm or a lost kid/teenager that means no harm. Though if either of the above made a threatening gesture that I felt put my life at stake than all bets are off.
I'm 6 miles from the city, out in the country. All my neighbors are either elderly or meth heads/dealers (hell probably some elderly meth dealers) so odds are someone entering my home is going to be a meth head or a meth dealer. Neither of which would be there to watch some tv or grab some food (at least not until after harming me or stealing my tv and taking it back to their house).
So. Rules 1,2,3 and 4 have been or will be broken if the person most likely to break into my home is NOT a homeless bum or a runaway child.
I can also use deadly force to defend myself at my job or in my car if I feel threatened.
Like I pointed out earlier, I'm not going to shoot someone just to shoot someone. I've had to run a few drunken idiots off my yard in the past couple of years and now that summer is here I'm sure I'll have to do it again. My piece is on me, tucked into my waistband in case but so far any confrontations I've had were resolved without violence. Though if anyone ever thought to swing at me or come at me they'll suffer severe lead poisoning.
If he walks into my house it's Breaking and Entering. A Felony. Hence I can defend my house with deadly force if I feel the need. All I have to do is feel threatened by his actions and someone just walking into my house as if he lives there would make me feel threatened.
Wrong. That is called Trespassing. Breaking and Entering requies some sort of force or 'breaking' to have occured, such as breaking a window or forcing a door open. Just walking into your house (if you left the door open that is) does not necessarily contistute breaking and entering. So if you were to walk dowstairs and spot a guy just walking in a seating himself on the couch, you don't have the right to use lethal force until he makes a threatening move. Unless of course you live in a place where you can use lethal force on trespassers. Then that would make you one of "those" people.
He doesn't have to intend to do harm. He could be headed for the refrigerator for a bite to eat and I can still use lethal force to diffuse the situation.
No. Having killed him, the onus is on you to prove that either he intended to cause harm, or there was reason for you to beleive so. As far as I know, a hobo walking into your house and getting a bite to eat from the fridge can not be called 'threatening'. Therefore, you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him just for that alone, you could tell him at gunpoint to get out of your house, but you wouldn't be allowed to pull the trigger until he actually did something threatening. (Like picking up the kitchen knife or something). Again, this is only if you live in a sane part of the world that values human life. If you live in a place where you can shoot anyone you feel like who enters your premises, then again you are one of "those" people.
If I hit him with an NLR and then hit him again when he's down the court has to PROVE that he was down for the count after the first one. It's on the prosecutor to prove I was overzealous.
True, but it wouldn't be that hard with forensics to tell whether he was on the floor when you shot him. Even if you had a good ol' time cleaning up afterwards.
I'm outside of city limits.
Good for you.
The first two I admit are a bit sketchy but then again with the Castle Doctrine I just have to "feel" threatened by someone entering my house uninvited and that is reasonable cause enough for me to defend myself. The person does not even need to be armed. It's on the hands of the prosecutor/police officers to prove I didn't feel threatened and that can't be proven.
No. Inccoret. The police have to prove that you killed someone, with your conffession, the body in your house, the smokeing gun ect, that shouldn't be too hard. Having used 'self-defense' as your defense, the onus is on YOU to prove that you had reasonable grounds to feel threatened and that taking lethal action was absolutely neccesary. That shouldn't be extremely hard to do, especially if you're telling the truth, but you still have to do that.
I'll admit, this is mostly on my experience with Australian Law and the Westminister system (couple with some basic sense). If the law really is that different between the two, then I'll apologise again, for I was not aware that you were one of "those" people.
You are trying to apply dern ferener law. That is not appropriate in this instance.
I just sum these arguments up as, you arnt an American. You will not understand the need/want for a weapon as we do. Its just that simple. Americans say America is #1 because we have an absolute LOVE for this country. Sure we are beat in ALOT of categories that would be considered in selecting a real #1. We also LOVE our guns. Our country was born by its people and our guns. So its practically bred into us.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Thats the beauty of having more than one country in this world. As long as we play nice with the other countries. But only the Western ones....
I bought a gun today. Can't say I'm thrilled about the 10-day waiting period here in Commiefornia. Waiting periods were never a law I could understand. I think it might have something to do with preventing someone who's a trifle hot-headed from buying a gun and using it right away, the waiting period giving him time to cool off. If anyone knows the real reason, I'd love to hear it.
Oh, it's a Kel-Tec SU-16CA, for anyone who's wondering. Not as nice as my customized AR-15 I had in NY, but, it was stolen from me and wouldn't be legal in CA anyway. :(
It might not be written on paper but my guess is the waiting period is to prevent a hothead going postal, though I'm sure that's not the intended reason.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Thankfully, Fateweaver has provided the basic tennents of the Castle Doctrine, so this shouldn't be too hard to grasp.
I assume that when one uses self-defense as a defense they have to prove it. It is not up to the police to disprove the claim.
It depends on the jurisdiction actually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commander Endova wrote:I bought a gun today. Can't say I'm thrilled about the 10-day waiting period here in Commiefornia. Waiting periods were never a law I could understand. I think it might have something to do with preventing someone who's a trifle hot-headed from buying a gun and using it right away, the waiting period giving him time to cool off. If anyone knows the real reason, I'd love to hear it.
Oh, it's a Kel-Tec SU-16CA, for anyone who's wondering. Not as nice as my customized AR-15 I had in NY, but, it was stolen from me and wouldn't be legal in CA anyway. :(
I read a consumer review. Is that the one with the grip that converts into a bipod? If so its a decent gun.
as opposed to our country just giving ourselves away first sight of them... and still getting bombed.
